A need exists for a universal, centralized uniform system for tracking titles on items of value from a point of sale device for articles of value, such as motor vehicles, boats, antiques, artwork, and real estate. Although records for those items are currently maintained by various unrelated parties they are at disparate, off-site locations. Further, there is no current universal system or means for universally centralizing all records to ensure that all information is up to date and accurate and that may be accessed by various, unrelated parties at a point of sale in a “client-server” atmosphere.
The failure(s) of the current tracking system(s) are particularly obvious when the articles are sold, and the purchaser (and/or lender) wants verification that the title is accurate. In the case of motor vehicles or boats, where titles are currently issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the titles are often of little value. In many states a dealer or an owner, or a thief, is able to obtain a new title to a vehicle simply by informing the DMV that the original title was lost or by changing jurisdictions, or some similar ploy. In this way, a dealer or anyone else could easily obtain a title for a stolen or salvaged vehicle with no indication on that title that the vehicle is a salvaged vehicle or is or was, stolen.
The current systems, according to recent FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) statistics, cost the owners of motor vehicles, and their insurers over $9B (nine billion dollars) in paid claims on motor vehicles alone, and another estimated $12-13B (twelve to thirteen billion dollars) in related damages for vehicle theft and theft-related fraud annually.
With fraudulent titles so easily obtainable, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find an insurance company willing to issue a title insurance policy. Thus, the purchaser usually bears all the risk of loss. It would be desirable to provide a uniform system for tracking all titles and that will insure that the titles are accurate, congruent and continual.
A further problem with the existing titles is that even if they are accurate, they do not contain enough information for the prospective buyer, and are not of a congruent or continual nature. Although extensive records are maintained by insurance companies with respect to damage to vehicles, thefts, major repairs, and salvage value, there is no universal system by which records are systemized and centralized within a data base that stores, converts and classifies all of this information, and there is currently no system for incorporating that information in a congruent and continual manner on the title. Such information would not only be useful for the buyer, but would also enhance the value of the article to the seller because he could provide the buyer with a verified history of the vehicle in a congruent and continual manner. None of the current systems are inter-connected and therefore the system lends itself to to redundancy, fraud, inaccuracy and confusion. For example, in the case of a motor vehicle, at least three parties make detailed records independently of one another, (1) the manufacturer stamps a vehicle identification number (VIN) on the vehicle which is coded to reveal particular information about the vehicle, (2) each individual jurisdiction (state) or district then issues a “new” title number each time a vehicle changes owners, (3) and new registration plates and related documents every time insurance or ownership changes, (4) the insurance industry maintains totally separate and different information, and (5) towns, cities and state agencies all maintaining separate, disparate and incommunicable information.
The current practice among manufacturers of most valuable goods is to imprint a serial number, or identifying number on the item before it leaves the manufacturing plant. The serial number is coded to reveal various information about the article, such as the year of manufacture, the manufacturing plant, and the particular style. In the case of motor vehicle, for example since 1980, a 17 character vehicle identification number (VIN) is imprinted on each vehicle. The VIN is coded so that the first eleven characters usually represent the following: country of origin, vehicle type, number of passengers, restraint system, car manufacturer model identification, vehicle series, body type description, engine size, a check digit, model year and manufacturing plant. The last six digits are different for each vehicle and serve to identify a particular vehicle.
However, the DMV issues a completely different title number and a different registration plate number; the insurance agent and/or company also maintains a completely separate record of the vehicle which includes information regarding the value of the vehicle, accidents, and repairs to the vehicle and insurance coverage; etc. and the DMV maintains yet another separate record of the ownership of the vehicle drivers of the vehicle, etc. Other government agencies may also maintain separate records for tax collecting purposes. There is no current system which integrates the information maintained separately by each of those parties in a universal, continual and congruent manner. It would also be desirable to expand the tracking system to provide for the tracking of subparts of the items. This would significantly reduce the incidence of thefts of automobiles and parts thereof; i.e., “chop-shop” activities.
A further problem is that there exists no centralized system which can be accessed by everyone. There are 51 jurisdiction(s) in the United States, each having its own version of the title, license plates, vanity plates, etc. Titles and registration plates vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but all track the owner(s) of the vehicle and not the asset (vehicle).
Every time an asset changes ownership, a completely new and unrelated set of documents are created, thereby necessitating that all disparate systems (and databases) must upgrade their system(s). This creates serious problems (if not impossible) to maintain all disparate databases with continual and congruent information. The current system(s) becomes even more complicated as requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
For tracking replacement parts, current systems have dissimilar multi-key tracking. The VIN; the Title; and the registration license plate must be combined, and the three keys “matched” to the owner, and then sent to another file or data base program to “contextually cross-match” the data files to see if there is a match (as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,989,144 to Barnett III) and then one must reverse the process back to all three or four “data-tracking keys” to update each file in the disparate data bases while still maintaining a further “contextually-matched” data base.
Further, there is no known current system to reach the data base(s) at the 700-800 insurance companies; the title holder's data base (DMV's); the insurance agencies' data bases; the automobile manufacturer's data base(s); the auto-dealership; current owner; the prospective buyer(s), etc. Many others are left out of the loop (i.e., local and state police; customs inspection stations; the FBI; cities and towns, the court systems, banks and financial agencies, etc.).
While all existing systems have their search procedures at least partly tied to the VIN, no existing system converts the VIN to a title number and registration number as a complete triangulated method, thereby universalizing the VIN beyond its original intended use. This unique method allows for massive amounts of heretofore, uncorrelated data to be controlled in a continual and congruent manner.
Current systems vary from state to state as to the permanency of the license plates. Some states, such as California and Texas issue “permanent” license plates assigned to a particular vehicle, but in fact they have no relation to the vehicle itself and can easily be lost or stolen with no current methods of tracking that license plate outside of the current owner. In certain states, the registration plate of the vehicle can take the form of a “special use”, or “vanity plate” or environmental plate. Many states use these vanity and environmental plates to raise additional revenue, thereby confusing an already difficult system.
Every state uses some type of random numbering sequence to create a new license plate number. In other words, the number on the plate usually bears no relationship to the vehicle at all, but rather to the owner or “class” of owner(s); i.e., states, auto-dealers, government agencies, etc.
A further problem with the existing systems is the redundacy and cost associated with having various different entities maintaining separate data bases and methods of tracking, each having its own room for error. Under the existing systems, each one of the individual(s) or groups must maintain their own data base and method of tracking. Therefore, these errors compound themselves dramatically depending on the type of error and/or omission and how many databases rely on that information in its “correct” form.
One attempt to protect against fraud in motor vehicle transactions is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,989,144 to Barnett III. It teaches to identify discrepancies in existing vehicle title information by gathering recent title transaction data from a plurality of sources indexed by the VIN. It then adds records to a master data base having a plurality of standard variable format transaction records indexed by the VIN. When a report is requested, all records indexed by the same VIN are selected and discrepancies are identified by “contextual analysis”. One of the problems associated with this system is that it relies on a comparison of records kept by others. It does not correct any discrepancies in the titles nor does it provide any means for eliminating the errors when the data is originally input into the various data base. Further- more, it requires that data be kept by various, independent entities, and then redundantly researched time and time again (even for that same vehicle) because that vehicle may change jurisdictions and/or owners many times in its life-cycle. Further, it will be readily apparent that 1000 vehicles can be reviewed “contextually” with ease, but 200 million vehicles become much more difficult.
In cases where titles are not currently issued, and the articles are not marked with a serial number, such as antiques or artwork, the existing system provides no protection to the buyer. No centralized system exists to maintain records on such items that can be used to verify with simplicity the authenticity and ownership of the articles. It would be desirable to provide a centralized universal system which could provide those features. In addition to protecting the buyer, the system would fairly report the value of the items to the owner because of the proposed system's capability to authenticate and document the ongoing history and other pertinent facts that a prospective buyer, existing owner, or others may need to rely upon.
Thus, it is an object of the present invention to provide a centralized uniform system for maintaining up-to-date and accurate titles of all objects of value throughout that object's life-cycle.
It is another object of the present invention to reduce the incidence of fraud involved within the titling process and with the issuance of false titles to articles of value.
It is another object of the present invention to protect banks, other lenders and owners against fraudulent loan transactions.
It is yet another object of the invention to protect insurers against theft and theft-related fraud.
It is yet another object of the invention to supply accurate, congruent and meaningful information about the incidence and nature of accidents (even by type and model of vehicle).
It is yet another object of the invention to completely eliminate the “after-market” for stolen vehicles, boats, etc. and their sub-parts and therefore, deter or eliminate theft and theft-related fraud.
It is yet another object of the invention to assist buyers and sellers alike in arriving at heretofore unavailable information to reduce the unnecessary burden and expense caused them.
It is yet another object of the present invention to assist police in identifying stolen items while protecting their personal safety.
It is yet another object of the present invention to make title information accessible by all authorized entities.
It is yet another object to eliminate the redundancy involved when various parties maintain separate records of the same transaction.
It is another object of the present invention to supply updates and related information, with specificity, regarding any item tracked by this system in a congruent and continual manner.
It is yet another object of the present invention to track on the title with certainty, all pertinent parts and fixtures belonging to a total item, i.e., all of the major components that bear a manufacturer's serial number in order to eliminate improper or unauthorized substitutions of those major components in a congruent and continual manner.
It is yet another object of the invention to track on the title with certainty, all major marked (VIN stamped) parts and fixtures both from the vehicle being dismantled and whence going to the vehicle (or boat) being re-built.
It is yet another object of the invention to track on the title with certainty and specifically all tax-collecting, tax valuating, insurance collecting, insurance valuating, bank lending, bank valuating information.